Legale§e

Episode # 66 Today on Legalese we are doing a deep dive into the pending Supreme Court Case SEC v Jarkesy. This case was one included in my Supreme Court Roundup video from October 2023, which included a very brief summary of the case and reviewed the Question Presented. In my opinion, this case is shaping up to be the most interesting and most consequential among those I am covering for this term in my Supreme Court Roundup. Which is why today we’ll be giving this case the comprehensive attention it deserves. The Court is being asked to either reaffirm or vacate a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals that found an internal SEC case brought against George Jarkesy as unconstitutional on three separate grounds. Today we take a deep dive into the administrative state, the Fifth Circuit decision, the Supreme Court oral arguments and the scare-mongering untruths that are spreading by way of the corporate media and the Washington DC political class. Show Notes - How The Administrative State Is Disputing Your Right To A Jury Trial Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow RumbleOdyseeYouTubeAnchorTwitterSubstack Support PayPal.meVenmoLocalsContact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode # 65 Today on Legalese, we are discussing the case Moore v United States. This case, which was part of my 2023 Supreme Court Roundup was argued before the Court on December 5th, 2023. There is a lot of new information that can be gleaned about this case from those arguments and so this video will be a summary of those arguments. Looking at the key issues raised and making some fairly certain predictions about the outcome of this case. Show Notes Page for This Episode - Moore Money, More ProblemsGo Read my Article about Moore v United States that I mention at the top of my video: Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow RumbleOdyseeYouTubeAnchorTwitterSubstack Support PayPal.meVenmoLocalsContact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Understanding The Significance Of Ketanji Brown Jackson And Progressive Originalism Episode #61 Today on Legalese we will be discussing the judicial philosophy of Progressive Originalism. What is it, what isn't it, how does it work and to what ends? Plus how does it compare with the other more common forms of Originalist judicial interpretation such as original public meaning or textualism? Also we will be talking about the first Progressive Originalist on the Supreme Court. That is of course the Junior Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I will be discussing some likely surprising reasons Ketanji Brown Jackson has the potential to become one of the most influential justices on the high court and why that's not necessarily a bad thing! Follow and Support Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Support PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

The History Of Qualified Immunity -The Slow Death Of Government Accountability Episode # 64 Today on Legalese we are talking about the history of the qualified immunity doctrine. We do a deep dive into constitutional law and common law to show just how ahistorical this doctrine is, having been invented out of nothing by the Supreme Court in the 1980’s. Show Notes - History Of Qualified Immunity Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow RumbleOdyseeYouTubeAnchorTwitterSubstack Support PayPal.meVenmoLocalsContact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Qualified Immunity Turns Against Police (Blue On Blue Violence) Episode # 63 Today on Legalese we will be discussing two truly outrageous cases in which cops were granted qualified immunity. The first is a unique example of what I call "blue on blue violence". A term I coined to describe incidents in which police officers are both preparator and victim. In this case, one officer shot another in the back, paralyzing him. The hapless cop who carelessly shot him would get qualified immunity. While this case is, of course, a tragedy for Officer Jamie Morales (the injured cop)— If we step back, we can see this case as potentially being a positive development. Perhaps more police need to become victims of their own standards and practices if we ever hope to demonstrate just how unjust and unequitable the qualified immunity doctrine truly is. The second case is a truly shocking example of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and yet found himself being followed home by a truly deranged sociopath, who proceeded to assault this man right in his driveway... Only to find out this deranged sociopath was a police officer. He would also get qualified immunity for this off-duty assault that was the result of a deranged cop with a volatile temper and zero impulse control engaging in one of the most extreme cases of road rage ever. Show Notes - Qualified Immunity Turns On Police & Cops Get A Taste Of Their Own Medicine! Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter Substack Support PayPal.me Venmo Locals Contact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #62 Today on Legalese we will be discussing three cases going before the Supreme Court this term that are centered on gun rights and the second amendment. Two are new cases that the Court just recently granted cert on last week. Garland v Cargill and National Rife Association v Vullo. The third case is revisiting a case we already discussed in my first roundup video on October 2nd 2023. This is United States v Rahimi. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on November 7th. I have a hell of a lot to say about it, as well as giving you my prediction for the outcome of this case. Show Notes - SCOTUS Roundup: Gun Rights & The Second Amendment Follow and Support Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow RumbleOdyseeYouTubeAnchorTwitterSubstack Support PayPal.meVenmoLocalsContact Me BUY MY NEW BOOK Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #60 Today on Legalese we will be taking on several constitutional myths and misconceptions related to Congress, criminal law, state and federal jurisdiction and the great myth of federal supremacy. Show Notes Episode #60 - The Myth Of Federal Supremacy Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #59 Today on Legalese we will be discussing a major update to the Supreme Court's 2023 term. Earlier today the Court chose to grant cert on two big cases that offer a serious challenge to the doctrines of Chevron Deference and Qualified Immunity. In Relentless Inc. v Chamber Of Commerce we have a nearly identical case to the Loper Bright case the Court agreed to review back in May. Just like Loper, this case directly asks the Court to overturn Chevron Deference and revolves around a provision in the Magnuson-Stevens Act that supposedly coerces fishing vessels to not only to carry two federal officers onboard their boat AND pay those bureaucrats salary. One major difference is that, unlike Loper Bright, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will not be recusing herself from the case, allowing the full court to weigh in on this challenge to Chevron Deference. In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the justices agreed to decide what kinds of evidence will meet the exception outlined in 2019’s Nieves v Bartlett. In Nieves v. Bartlett, this Court held that probable cause does not bar a retaliatory arrest claim against a “police officer” when a plaintiff shows “that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.” The question before the Court is whether the Nieves probable cause exception can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened. On This episode we will discuss the backgrounds and facts of these two cases. Show Notes - Major Supreme Court Update Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #58 Today I Legalese I will be discussing the cases that I will be covering in depth during the coming Supreme Court term for 2023-2024 Show Note Page for "Supreme Court Roundup 2023-2024 Term" Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. ►00:00 Introduction ►05:00 Dominance of First Amendment Cases ►05:36 Social Media & State Law ►06:30 Moody v Netchoice LLC ►08:55 Netchoice LLC v Paxton ►10:40 Social Media, State Action & The First Amendment ►12:55 O'Conner-Ratcliff v Garnier ►14:15 Lindke v Freed ►14:42 Vidal v Elster ►16:05 Devillier v Texas ►17:45 Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo ►24:10 SEC v Jarkesy ►30:42 Moore v United States ►33:55 United States v Rahimi ►36:55 Conclusion Tags: Law,Constitution,Politics,legal theory,Moral Philosophy,Current Events,supreme court,first amendment,1A,social media,SB 7072,HB 20,administrative law,chevron,rahimi,2A,second amendment,7th amendment,5th amendment,takings clause --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #56 Today on Legalese we will be discussing a recent case out of the Sixth Circuit - 'Ingram v Wayne County' in which the Court held that when a car is seized under civil asset forfeiture, the owner has a constitutional right to a hearing within two weeks of the seizure. On top of that encouraging majority opinion, we also discuss the concurring opinion filed in this case by prominent conservative jurist Judge Amul Thapar that takes an even more striking and encouraging position. Show Notes Page "Sixth Circuit Smacks Down Civil Asset Forfeiture" - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-56-sixth-circuit-smacks-down Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #57 Today On Legalese we are going to be discussing the 7 categories of speech that are not protected under the first amendment: Intro Incitement True Threats Fighting Words Defamation Obscenity Fraud and Perjury Speech Integral To Criminal Conduct Show Notes Page For This Episode This episode was created to be the ultimate guide to unprotected speech within our modern legal framework according to the First Amendment's protections of speech, expression and conduct. There are a great deal of misconceptions and misinterpretations of what classes or categories of speech fall outside the bounds of first amendment protection. In order to minimize, if not wholly eliminate the common causes of such misunderstandings and misinterpretations, I have done my best to excise any discussion that relies on contested claims or personal opinions, including my own. We look specifically and comprehensively at those categories of unprotected speech in constitutional law which the courts have concluded to be well-established exceptions. We look at the landmark cases that have established these categories and derive definitions, principles, doctrines and legal tests through a textual analysis of the controlling opinions of the court to provide everyone the information they would need to successfully defend their individual rights of free speech, expression and conduct within our existing legal and constitutional framework. Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. 00:00 Intro 11:42 Incitement 14:57 True Threats 21:08 Fighting Words 35:05 Obscenity 36:34 Defamation 37:51 Fraud and Perjury 38:55 Speech Integral To Criminal Conduct 39:29 What of Hate Speech? 45:57 Outro 46:18 Closing Announcement/Question --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #55 Today on Legalese we look at two recent cases that pit private citizens and the First Amendment against qualified immunity and police officers who believe themselves to be above the law. In Jordan v Adam's County Sheriff's Office a man was arrested for criticizing two shitty cops who got very upset when their inflated sense of authority was questioned. In Bailey v Iles we find a man whose only "crime" was to post a joke on Facebook. Which was considered enough of a crime by the Rapides Parish Police Department in Louisiana to send a SWAT team to arrest him and charge him with violating a state anti-terrorism law. In both cases the Tenth Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals (respectively) would find in favor of these two citizens while holding the actions of these police to be so unreasonable these officers would not be allowed to cower behind claims of qualified immunity. Show Notes Page for "First Amendment Beats Police Defendants" Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #54 A big win coming out of the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals in the case of Rogers v. Smith. The Court affirmed that a police officer who deprived a citizen of their first and fourth amendment rights when they arrested that citizen for criminal libel, despite the police's prior awareness the criminal libel law in question, Louisiana Revised Statutes §14.47 had been ruled unconstitutional by both the Louisiana and United States Supreme Courts. For these reason the police officers being sued in this case were DENIED qualified immunity and held to have deprived the plaintiff of his civil rights under color of law in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1983 I also use this case to discuss one of the most common and problematic myths in constitutional law. The writ-of-erasure fallacy. This deals with the crucial distinction between a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the Courts and the actual repeal of that law by the legislature. The confusion over this legal doctrine frequently has major real world consequences and we discuss what they are. Show Notes Page for Federal Court Short Circuits Officer's Qualified Immunity Defense - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-54-fifth-circuit-short-circuits Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos! Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more! Follow RumbleOdyseeYouTubeTwitterSubstackAnchor⁠ Support PayPal.meVenmoLocals Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, fifth circuit, supreme court, criminal libel, louisiana revised statute,§14.47, 42 USC §1983, rogers v smith, qualified immunity --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #53 Today on Legalese we are going to be discussing a new article that will be released in an upcoming volume of the Notre Dame Law Review entitled "Qualified Immunity As Gun Control". Law professors Guha Krishnamurthi & Peter N. Salib make one of the most evil and admittedly most brilliant calls ever to further a gun control agenda by using the doctrine of qualified immunity. This video is based on my article of the same name, recently published to Substack: https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qualified-immunity-as-gun-control Even if you have read the article this video may well be worth a watch anyway, as I have elaborated on certain topics first discussed in the article, such as judicial scrutiny. The original article by Krishnamurthi and Salib was largely written as a response to a notable case filed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit on Feb 02, 2023 ~United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 448 (5th Cir. 2023). https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-11001/21-11001-2023-02-02.pdf?ts=1675384240 What makes U.S. v Rahimi so notable is that the Supreme Court has chosen to grant cert on this case, following a petition filed by the DOJ on the following question presented: "Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face." This case has a high likelihood of ending up as a landmark 2A case in their upcoming term... ORIGINAL ARTICLE Krishnamurthi, Guha and Salib, Peter, Qualified Immunity as Gun Control (July 5, 2023). Notre Dame Law Review Reflection (forthcoming 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4500816 SHOW NOTES For all other links and citations, as well as a full transcript of this podcast episode head over to episode show notes page - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qi-as-gc FOLLOW AND SUPPORT Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Pick up a copy of my book - “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legale§e is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law-- as well as current events in law, politics and culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #52 Today on Legalese we will be discussing the Supreme Court's landmark equal protection clause case dealing with the constitutionality of racially biased admissions discrimination policies on both public and private universities. The case: Students For Fair Admission v Harvard effectively puts an end to affirmative action in college admissions in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in it's opinion that the affirmative action policies fail the strict scrutiny standard in every regard. Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #51 Today on Legalese we have another video in my Supreme Court Wrap-Up. We discuss Haaland v Brackeen (2023). A landmark Indian Commerce Clause case that sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/haaland-v-brackeen-599-us-___-2023 Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/ Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/ Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #50 Today on Legalese we will be talking about corporate personhood. We examine a number of the most common myths and misconceptions surrounding the issues of corporations, of people and of rights. Show Notes Page Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese NewsletterLegalese HomepageContact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

The other day on Twitter the notable YouTuber and world-class milquetoast fence sitter, Tim Pool tweeted about the upcoming Supreme Court Opinion in Jackson and Bruen. Saying if the Court overturns Roe and Casey and also rules on Nationwide Constitutional Carry there will be less rioting. While there are myriad problems with this tweet the one that really grinds my gears was his insistence the court could rule on nationwide constitutional carry. After reaching out to Tim to verify if this was meant to be ironic or if it was a genuine statement and it became clear that not only he, but his many followers all genuinely believe this is the most likely outcome, despite the fact this is a constitutional and procedural impossibility. After trying to explain and finding 240 characters not being nearly enough to refute such a complicatedly wrong belief I decided to make this video. Not only will it hopefully explain to the thousands of people espousing this with nothing but an assumption it must be correct why it is LITERALLY impossible for the court to make any ruling about constitutional carry and LITERALLY impossible the outcome of Bruen will be a nationwide anything, its also a great primer for those who are interested in this case to help explain what the case is about or to remind you of the importance facts, issues, the question presented and the potential judgement so when the case comes out you will have a fresh understanding of the arguments that were made in the cert petitions and oral arguments heard last November. Past Episode Referenced In This Episode Disarming Gun Control (Part One)⁠Disarming Gun Control (Part Two)⁠⁠Second Amendment Goes Back To Court⁠Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Roundup⁠⁠All Gun Control Is Unconstitutional⁠⁠What The Heller?⁠⁠What Is An Assault Weapon?⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today On Legalese we are talking about the ridiculous arguments coming from Washington that suggest the debt limit is unconstitutional and that the 14th amendment authorizes the President to circumvent the Constitution and laws of the United States to pay off the US debts to avoid default. Show Notes Page For This Episode Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Today on Legalese we return to a case I discussed in January about home equity theft and the Supreme Court case challenging its constitutionality. Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion, enjoining Minnesota’s Home Equity Theft law as unconstitutional under the Takings Clause. We will be talking the case in question Tyler v Hennepin County, why and how the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Geraldine Tyler, and what some of the likely ramifications of this decision will be when it comes to the government and further schemes of legalized theft. ⁠Show Notes Page For This Episode⁠ Follow & Support Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter Legalese Homepage Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law. Tags: Law,Constitution,Politics,legal theory,Moral Philosophy,Current Events,geraldine tyler,Hennepin county,home equity theft,minnesota,supreme court,john roberts,neil gorsuch,ketanji brown jackson,property rights,takings clause,just compensation,excessive fines --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support